Year: 2014
Type: dissertation
Abstract: Kūkai (774-835) is considered the founder of the Shingon form of “esoteric Buddhism” in Japan. As one of the most prominent scholar-monks of the early Heian period (784/94-1185), he applied his remarkable diplomatic insight in the interaction with both the imperial court as well as the established Buddhist institutions. He is not only celebrated for his systematizing philosophical capacities, but also for his profound knowledge of Tang dynasty (618-907) Chinese culture. Between 804 and 806, Kūkai studied “esoteric Buddhism” in China, from where he brought a rich array of texts, scroll paintings, and ritual implements back to Japan. There, he established the so-called Zhenyan tradition as a systematized body of thought and practice in the Shingon school. The voluminous text corpus that has been attributed to Kūkai, gives testimony of his envisioning a unity of Indian, Chinese, and Japanese Buddhist denominations that ultimately culminate in Shingon Mikkyō. Shingon Mikkyō (lit. “mantra esotericism”, cf. Skt. Mantrayāna) soon became one of Japan’s most influential forms of Buddhism. Its doctrinal teachings and ritual practice are considered “esoteric”, because they can only be studied after initiation, and are transmitted from master to disciple. During the training period following the initiation, the master “reveals” the “secret” or “hidden” (Jap. mitsu) means to attain Buddhahood. Amongst these expedients, which are also called “mysteries”, are mantras (Jap. shingon). Their recitation forms a main constituent of esoteric ritual practices, alongside physical postures and hand gestures, as well as visualization techniques and meditative contemplation of buddhas and bodhisattvas that are depicted in mandalas. Such expedients allow the practitioner to perfect man-Buddha integration. These “three esoterica” represent the body, speech/voice, and mind/thought of Mahāvairocana, who occupies the central place in the Shingon system. They are universal, because all beings –in whatever they do, say, or think– are considered nothing but individualized manifestations of absolute reality, embodied in Mahāvairocana, but their originally enlightened nature is “hidden” from them by illusion. The advent of Shingon Mikkkyō is traditionally marked by Kūkai’s receiving of the twofold consecration into the so-called vajradhātu and garbhadhātu-mandalas from his master Huiguo (746-806) at the Qinglong temple in Chang’an in 804. It is precisely the propagation of the consecration ritual, known as abhiṣeka (Jap. kanjō), that has played a crucial role in the profiling of Kūkai as a religious leader. The main ritual is preceded by a preliminary procedure, in which the officiant vows to keep the so-called sanmaiya-kai, i.e. the “esoteric precepts”. Although each practitioner of no matter which denomination of esoteric Buddhism has to take such an oath, there are only a few studies of its history within the Tibetan context, and to date there is not a single non-Japanese study on the origins and evolution of these vows/precepts in China, Korea, or Japan. The handful of scholars who mention them incidentally in their English publications, merely paraphrase, quote, or refer to the following lines in the translation of Hakeda’s Kūkai: Major Works (1972: 95-96): “Never to abandon the True Dharma; Never to negate bodhicitta, the seed of enlightenment said to be shared by all beings; Never to be parsimonious in sharing Buddhist teachings with others; and Never to cause any sentient beings harm.” Also for the ritual procedure followed in taking the “samaya code”, the reader is referred to merely two texts: i.e. the Mahāvairocanasūtra, and “Kūkai’s” Ritual Protocol for Taking the Esoteric Vows, being the Symbol of Buddhas (Jap. Himitsu sanmaiya bukkaigi; further: HSBK). Instead of calling them “esoteric precepts”, some scholars speak of “tantric” or “Mantrayāna vows”. This immediately entails some questions: What is the format of this “preliminary procedure”? What does the term “sanmaiya-kai” denote? Why are these precepts/vows “esoteric”? What is the meaning of such terms as “True Teaching”, “bodhicitta”, etc.? Is there a significant difference between “esoteric” and “tantric” on the one hand, and between “precepts” and “vows” on the other? Are they merely translations of the same concepts, or is there more to it? The HSBK, i.e. the ritual manual presented as a main sources for the systematization of the aforementioned preliminary procedure, has not yet been disclosed, translated, or studied in another language than Japanese. Therefore, aside from offering a historical context (chapter II), this dissertation (chapter II) presents the first English annotated translation of this text (chapter III). The main goal of the thesis, however, is to discuss the aforementioned and related questions on the “tantric vows” of “esoteric Buddhism” in Japan, by focusing on their representation in the HSBK, and their interpretation within the framework of Kūkai’s precepts view (chapter IV). Available research on “samaya precepts” and the HSBK is mainly the work of Japanese researchers affiliated to Buddhist universities. Some of them, such as Tomabechi, have argued that the HSBK cannot be considered Kūkai’s genuine work, mainly because of the text’s relation to two other texts: the first being either Kūkai’s own work, or of unknown authorship, namely the Document regarding the Conferral of the Precepts for the Arousal of the Intent to Attain Awakening (Jap. Ju hotsu bodaishinkai mon; further: JHBK), while the second, i.e. the Samaya Precepts for the Conceration Ritual (Jap. Kanjō sanmaiya-kai; further: KSK), is an alleged compilation by Ennin (794–864). Precepts for Buddhist ordination only reached Japan in the Nara period, and were further systematized in the course of the early Heian era. In this context, Kūkai’s writings show that he was a proponent of upholding both the vinaya and the sīla, which are together discussed under the denominator kairitsu. His texts clearly give evidence of the fact that he complied with the established Dharmaguptaka ordination system at Tōdaiji, but also added the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya to the Shingon curriculum. In order to stress the uniqueness of Shingon, he also promoted a third, new set of precepts, namely the samaya. Kūkai emphasized that one strictly has to adhere to the “exoteric precepts” and instructed his followers to ordain at the Tōdaiji precepts platform, not in the least because “given the absolute all-embracing principle of the mandalas, upholding the Hīnayāna precepts as such is also upholding the esoteric samaya precepts” (Ueda T. 1933: 142). In contrast to those for śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and Mahāyāna bodhisattvas, the HSBK calls these fundamental precepts of Mikkyō “the symbol of Buddhas”. They are a crucial condition for conferring esoteric consecration, for “those who are about to enter this vehicle must first of all abide by the precepts. These are named samaya, and the teaching is called Shingon” (Endō 1972: 8). With regard to the authenticity of the HSBK, the discussion is recalled on the Notes on the Secret Treasury (Jap. Hizōki), which mainly comprises two theories, i.e. either it is the record of Amoghavajra’s instructions to Huiguo, or it concerns Kūkai’s handwritten notes of oral instructions he received from Huiguo. The validity of the first interpretation solely depends on the relation between Amoghavajra’s teachings on one ritual and a colophon attached to one of the ritual manuals from the Hizōki that was allegedly imported to Japan by Ennin. As Abe (1999: 487-488, n. 60) puts it: “because Huiguo studied with Amoghavajra, such an identity does not necessarily suggest that he is the author of the Hizōki. On the other hand, the Hizōki contains many elements that emphasize the unity of the garbha and vajradhātu mandalas and highlight the distinction between the exoteric and esoteric. These elements, absent in Amoghavjra’s other writings, are the hallmark of Kūkai’s texts.” With the invocation of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas from both mandalas, the HSBK likewise stresses their unity, and the precepts that the text expounds make a clear distinction between exoteric and esoteric approaches. In addition, the undeniable presence of elements in the HSBK that are in line with Kūkai’s precepts view, as it can be distilled from his own/other writings, urges to conclude (chapter V) that questioning the authenticity of the HSBK is no longer tenable. Regardless of the apparent connection to other texts, reading the HSBK in the context of Kūkai’s precepts view points at clues in support of the thesis that it was exactly the other way around, namely: it is very likely that the JHBK and KSK were separate texts comprising Kūkai’s actual notes of oral instructions he received from Huiguo whilst staying in China. After his return to Japan, these were late combined in a single ritual manual, that is, the HSBK. Since then, it circulated together with Kūkai’s Preface to the Samaya Precepts (Jap. Sanmaiya-kai jo; further: SKJ), which is the foundation of the Treatise on the Ten Stages of Mind (Jap. Jūjūshinron), Kūkai’s magnum opus that was compiled on imperial command in 830. Moreover, the close relationship of the HSBK with texts of which Kūkai’s authorship is undebated, such as the SKJ, but also the so-called Kōnin and Heizei Instructions, make it more than plausible that the HSBK was written at the same time of the latter texts, i.e. ca. 822. It has also been pointed out that the ritual procedure of the HSBK appears to be based on such texts as the Ritual for Conferring the Bodhicitta Precepts (Jap. Ju bodaishinkai gi; further: JBKG), and the Essentials on Meditation by Śubhākarasiṃha (Jap. Mui-sanzō Zen’yō; further: MSZ). That is, while the mantras are borrowed from the former, the outline of the ritual is grafted on the latter. However, the four capital prohibitions and the ten fundamental precepts expound
Author: Klaus Pinte
Language: English
Topic: Indian and Buddhist Studies
Subfield: Religious studies
Field: Arts and Humanities
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
Funder: Universität zu Köln
OpenAlex ID: W2283936073